Mobile health: the power of wearables, sensors, and apps to transform clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile technology has become a ubiquitous part of everyday life, and the practical utility of mobile devices for improving human health is only now being realized. Wireless medical sensors, or mobile biosensors, are one such technology that is allowing the accumulation of real-time biometric data that may hold valuable clues for treating even some of the most devastating human diseases. From wearable gadgets to sophisticated implantable medical devices, the information retrieved from mobile technology has the potential to revolutionize how clinical research is conducted and how disease therapies are delivered in the coming years. Encompassing the fields of science and engineering, analytics, health care, business, and government, this report explores the promise that wearable biosensors, along with integrated mobile apps, hold for improving the quality of patient care and clinical outcomes. The discussion focuses on groundbreaking device innovation, data optimization and validation, commercial platform integration, clinical implementation and regulation, and the broad societal implications of using mobile health technologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.105 | 0.210 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".